[GourmetDan]

"Interesting. Now please answer the question: when has science ever used non-materialistic data with tangible results? If you cannot answer this question then you should not be using the fruits of science -- things like computers, cars, medicine, etc. None of these exist without the scientific method and the fact science is grounded in the physical universe."

Again, pointing out the logical fallacies you commit in support of your personal philosophical worldview has no impact on your thought processes. Your question has the assumption of philosophical naturalism embedded in it and requires the assumption of philosophical naturalism for interpreting any answers.

Claiming that a person has no right to 'use the fruits' of methodological naturalism unless they also accept philosophical naturalism as a belief system is simply irrational. There is no rational basis for such a demand.

"I await a direct answer, not philosophical musings ending in personal attacks."

You have received a direct answer. That you refuse to accept it does not mean that it is not a direct answer. It is also not a personal attack to tell someone that they commit logical fallacies or that they lack the critical-thinking abilities to recognize their error when that is plainly the case.

[freedumb2003]

You have received a direct answer. That you refuse to accept it does not mean that it is not a direct answer.

Let me make it easier -- a yes or no question. Has there ever been an instance in science where a tangible result has come from some event not observed and described in the physical universe?

Yes or no. Simple. No need for rambling nor inventing phrases that do not apply to the question at hand.